Abstract
In this paper we present the Scholarly Ontology (SO), an ontology for modelling scholarly practices, inspired by business process modelling and Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. The SO is based on empirical research and earlier models and is designed so as to incorporate related works through a modular structure. The SO is an elaboration of the domain-independent core part of the NeDiMAH Methods Ontology addressing the scholarly ecosystem of Digital Humanities. It thus provides a basis for developing domain-specific scholarly work ontologies springing from a common root. We define the basic concepts of the model and their semantic relations through four complementary perspectives on scholarly work: activity, procedure, resource and agency. As a use case we present a modelling example and argue on the purpose of use of the model through the presentation of indicative SPRQL and SQWRL queries that highlight the benefits of its serialization in RDFS. The SO includes an explicit treatment of intentionality and its interplay with functionality, captured by different parts of the model. We discuss the role of types as the semantic bridge between those two parts and explore several patterns that can be exploited in designing reusable access structures and conformance rules. Related taxonomies and ontologies and their possible reuse within the framework of SO are reviewed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Berman, F., Fox, G., Hey, A.J.G.: Grid Computing. Wiley, New York (2003)
Research Infrastructures in the Digital Humanities. Science Policy Briefing, vol. 42. European Science Foundation, ISBN: 978-2-918428-50-3 (2011). http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb42_RI_DigitalHumanities.pdf
Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C.: An approach to analyzing working practices of research communities in the humanities. Int. J. Humanit. Arts Comput. 7, 105–127 (2013)
Case, D.O.: Looking for information: a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Academic Press, San Diego, CA (2002)
Bearman, D.: Overview and discussion points. In: Research agenda for networked cultural heritage. Getty AHIP, pp. 7–22 . Santa Monica, CA (1996)
Brodaric, B., Gahegan, M.: Ontology use for semantic e-science. Semant. Web (2010). doi:10.3233/SW-2010-0021
Thanos, C.: The future of digital scholarship. Procedia Comput. Sci. 38, 22–27 (2014)
Thanos, C.: Mediation: the technological foundation of modern science. Data Sci. J. 13, 88–105 (2014)
Meho, L.I., Tibbo, H.R.: Modeling the information-seeking behaviour of social scientists: Ellis’s study revisited. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Tech. 54, 570–587 (2003)
Palmer, C.L., Cragin, M.H.: Scholarship and disciplinary practices. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. (2008)
Unsworth, J.: Scholarly primitives: what methods do humanities researchers have in common, and how might our tools reflect this? King’s College, London (2000). http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/Kings.5-00/primitives.html. Accessed 4 Aug 2009
Victor Kaptelinin, B.A.N.: Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design, p. 1347 (2006)
Yu, E., Giorgini, P., Maiden, N., Mylopoulos, J., Fickas, S.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. In: Social Modelling for Requirements Engineering, p. 11152
Sun, J., Loucopoulos, P., Zhao, L.: Representing and elaborating quality requirements: the QRA approach. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8217, pp. 446–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41924-9_37
Tsakonas, G., Papatheodorou, C.: An ontological representation of the digital library evaluation domain. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62(8), 1577–1593 (2011)
Dietz, J.L.G.: Enterprise Ontology: Theory and Methodology, Enterprise Ontology (2006)
Weske, M.: Business Process Management. Springer, Berlin (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28616-2
Fox, M.S.: The TOVE project towards a common-sense model of the enterprise. In: Industrial and Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems, vol. 604, p. 2534. Springer, Berlin (1992). doi:10.1007/BFb0024952
Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S.: The enterprise ontology. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 13(1), 31–89 (1998)
Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Herman, G.A.G.A1.: Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)
Crofts, N., Doerr, M., Gill, T., Stead, S., Stiff, M. (eds.): Definition of the CIDOC conceptual reference model (version 5.0.1). ICOM/CIDOC CRM Special Interest Group (2009). http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/official_release_cidoc.html
Guizzardi, G., Wagner, G.: A unified foundational ontology and some applications of it in business modelling. In: CAiSE Workshops, pp. 129–143 (2004)
Workflows for e-Science: Scientific workflows for grids (2006)
Deelman, E., Gannon, D., Shields, M., Taylor, I.: Workflows and e-Science: an overview of workflow system features and capabilities. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 25, 528–540 (2009)
Benardou, A., Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., Gavrilis, D.: Understanding the information requirements of arts and humanities scholarship. IJDC 5, 18–33 (2010)
Constantopoulos, P., Dallas, C., Doorn, P., Gavrilis, D., Gros, A., Stylianou, G.: Preparing DARIAH. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Virtual Systems and MultiMedia (VSMM08). Nicosia, Cyprus (2008). http://www.dcu.gr/dcu/Documents/documents/preparing-dariah/en/attachment
NeDiMAH Methods Ontology (NeMO). http://nemo.dcu.gr
Benardou, A., et al.: A conceptual model for scholarly research activity. In: Unsworth, J., Rosenbaum, H., Fisher, K.E. (eds.) iConference 2010 Proceedings (Urbana–Champaign, Ill., 2010), p. 2632 (2010)
Doerr, M., Kritsotaki, A., Christophides, V., Kotzinos, D.: Reference Ontology for Knowledge Creation Processes. Collaborative Knowledge Creation, pp. 31–52. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2012). doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-004-0_3
Francesconi, F., Dalpiaz, F., Mylopoulos, J.: TBIM: A Language for Modelling and Reasoning about Business Plans. Conceptual Modelling. Springer, Berlin (2013)
Doerr, M., Tzobanakis, M.: On information organization in annotation systems. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p. 189200. Springer, Berlin (2005)
Suzuki, T., Hosoya, M.: Computational stylistic analysis of popular songs of japanese female singer-songwriters. Digit. Humanit. Q. 8 (2014). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/8/1/000170/000170.html
Stocker, M., Smith, M.: Owlgres: a scalable OWL reasoner. Owled (2008)
Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B. C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. 5(2), 5153 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.004
O’Connor, M.J., Das, A.K.: SQWRL: a query language for OWL. OWLED (2009)
SWRL: a semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. http://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/
TOULMIN, S.E.: The Uses of Argument, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
FaBiO and CiTO: ontologies for describing bibliographic resources and citations. 17, 3343 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001
Soldatova, L.N., King, R.D.: An ontology of scientific experiments. J. R. Soc. Interface 3(11), 795–803 (2006)
Newman, D., Bechhofer, S., De Roure, D.: myExperiment: an ontology for e-research (2009)
Doerr, M., Rousakis, Y., Hiebel, G.: CRMsci: the scientific observation model. 135 (2014)
Sure, Y., Bloehdorn, S., Haase, P., Hartmann, J., Oberle, D.: The SWRC ontology semantic web for research communities. In: Presented at the EPIA’05: Proceedings of the 12th Portuguese Conference on Progress in Artificial Intelligence, Berlin (2005)
Tifous, A., Ghali, El, A., Dieng-Kuntz, R., Giboin, A., Christina, C., Vidou, G., : An Ontology for Supporting Communities of Practice. ACM, New York (2007)
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Stavros Angelis, Costis Dallas, Agiatis Benardou, Leonidas Papachristopoulos, Nephelie Chatzidiakou, Eliza Papaki and Lorna Hughes for many productive discussions and insights. This work was in part supported by the projects Network for Digital Methods in the Arts and Humanities (NeDiMAH), DARIAH- ATTIKH: Developing the Greek Research Infrastructure for the Humanities DYAS, and the AUEB Original Publications Programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Overview of SO classes and properties
Appendix: Overview of SO classes and properties
1.1 Namespaces other than SO are declared as prefixes
ClassName | SubClassOf | Properties | Range |
|---|---|---|---|
Activity | Event | employs | Method |
isTreggeredBy | ResearchQuestion | ||
produces | InformationResource | ||
uses | InformationResource | ||
isDocumentedIn | InformationResource | ||
hasParticipant | Actor | ||
usesTool | Tool | ||
where | Place | ||
when | Time | ||
hasScope | ActivityType | ||
partOf | Activity | ||
follows | Activity | ||
resultsIn | Assertion | ||
hasObjective | Goal | ||
ActivityType | Type | isScopeOf | Activity |
isPurposeOfEmploymentOf | Method | ||
isIntentionOf | Actor | ||
isPurposeOfUseOf | Tool | ||
Actor | UFO:Agent | participatesIn | Activity |
CRM:Actor | hasGoal | Goal | |
hasIntention | ActivityType | ||
hasRole | ActorRole | ||
ActorRole | Type | isRoleOf | ActorRole |
Aggregation | InformationResource | hasMember | InformationResource |
Annotation | Assertion | ||
Assertion | ConceptualObject | isResultOf | Activity |
Collection | PhysicalObject | ||
ConceptualObject | CRM:ConceptualObject | ||
ContentItem | InformationResource | providesDescriptionFor | Mehtod |
providesReferenceFor | Mehtod | ||
Course | Activity | teaches | Method |
Dataset | InformationResource | ||
Discipline | Type | isOriginOf | Method |
Event | UFO:Event | ||
CRM:Event | |||
Goal | Assertion | isGoalOf | Actor |
dependsOn | Goal | ||
comprises | Goal | ||
isAddressedBy | Method | ||
isObjectiveOf | Activity | ||
Group | Actor | ||
InformationCarrier | PhysicalObject | ||
InformationResource | ConceptualObject | isCarriedBy | InformationCarrier |
hasType | InformationResourceType | ||
hasFormat | MediaType | ||
isRepresentationOf | ConceptualObject | ||
isUsedIn | Activity | ||
isProductOf | Activity | ||
ProvidesDocumentationFor | Activity | ||
isMemberOf | Aggregation | ||
hasTopic | Topic | ||
isDescribedBy | Metadata | ||
InformationResourceType | Type | isTypeOf | InformationResource |
isPrescribedAsTypeBy | Method | ||
MediaType | Type | isPrescribedAsFormatBy | yMethod |
isFormatOf | InformationResource | ||
Metadata | InformationResource | describes | InformationResource |
Method | ConceptualObject | prescribesTool | Tool |
isEmployedIn | Activity | ||
isTaughtIn | Course | ||
isUsedIn | Project | ||
isEmployedFor | ActivityType | ||
prescribesFormat | MediaType | ||
treats | ResearchQuestion | ||
hasDescription | ContentItem | ||
isReferencedIn | ContentItem | ||
prescibesType | InformationResourceType | ||
hasPart | Step | ||
comesFrom | Discipline | ||
isInfluencedBy | SchoolOfThought | ||
addresses | Goal | ||
Model | Tool | ||
ConceptualObject | |||
Object | CRM:Thing | isInvolvedIn | Activity |
UFO:Endurant | |||
Person | Actor | ||
PhysicalObject | CRM:PhysicalObject | ||
PhysicalTool | PhysicalObject | ||
Tool | |||
Project | Activity | usesMethod | Method |
Proposition | Assertion | ||
ResearchQuestion | Assertion | Triggers | Activity |
istreatedBy | Method | ||
SchoolOfThought | Type | influences | Method |
Software | InformationResource | ||
Tool | Object | isUsedAsToolIn | Activity |
isPrescribedAsToolBy | Method | ||
isUsedAsToolFor | ActivityType | ||
Topic | ConceptualObject | isTopicOf | InformationResource |
TopicExpression | Topic | ||
TopicKeyword | Topic | ||
Type | |||
Type | ConceptualObject |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pertsas, V., Constantopoulos, P. Scholarly Ontology: modelling scholarly practices. Int J Digit Libr 18, 173–190 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-016-0169-3